Doc's Talk: Toothless watchdogs of democracy

Friday, June 26, 2009

Toothless watchdogs of democracy

Jun. 25, 2009
ZVI MAZEL , THE JERUSALEM POST

Twelve days after the elections in Iran, the revolution appears to be faltering, though the regime's clampdown on the news makes it difficult to know what is really happening. The number of victims is probably much higher than the official figure.

The part played by defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in the latest developments is still unclear. What is beyond dispute is that while the events were unfolding, the world looked on and did precisely nothing.
The saner elements - that is, excluding Venezuela, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas - rooted for the protesters and hoped for a new regime more receptive to the calls for freedom and perhaps more democratic; a regime turning away from the aggressive stand of the ayatollahs and accepting to review its nuclear policy.

However, while brave men and women fought a hopeless battle in the streets of Teheran against the brutal repression of the security forces of the fanatical regime, no one lifted a finger to help them.

The fact is that what looked like a spontaneous uprising took experts and commentators by surprise. It had been generally accepted that the election would be close, and that should Mousavi win, he would devote his efforts to the economy while toeing the Khatami line - in other words, pretend to be a little more liberal than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without departing from his predecessor's policies of exporting the Islamic Revolution and developing his country nuclear potential.

The actual results - an estimated 57 percent of the vote for Mousavi according to the first reports - came as a shock, perhaps to Mousavi as well. The more so since Ahmadinejad's partisans did everything they could to thwart his opponents: Voters were prevented from entering polling stations, vote bulletins disappeared...

The government decided to put a stop to what looked more and more to be a humiliating defeat and published figures "demonstrating" Ahmadinejad's clear victory, with nearly two-thirds of the votes, against Mousavi's third and less than 3% for the other two candidates. The proportions remained constant even in the strongholds of Ahmadinejad's three opponents, a manifest impossibility.

The brazen nature of the fraud was probably what lit the fuse. Mousavi had been one of the leaders of the uprising against the shah in 1979; he was head of the government between 1981 and 1989, that is, during the long and bloody war with Iraq, and was known for his "revolutionary fervor" in the service of the ayatollahs.

He suddenly found himself at the spearhead of a popular movement calling for reforms and fighting the very regime he had helped establish. It is unclear whether he took the initiative or was carried away. He may have been in favor of greater liberalization, but he was not ready to go all the way.

And the West? The West could not get its act together. The situation in Iran was frontpage news everywhere, and the reports were sympathetic to the demonstrators, but that was all. The reaction of the US, torchbearer of democracy, was strangely muted.

Barack Obama at first compared Mousavi to Ahmadinejad, and it took a week of bloody protests, intense pressure from Republicans and the incomprehension of most political commentators at home and in the world to get him to condemn the brutal repression.

The American president had not yet grasped what had happened. Hadn't he sent Supreme Leader Ali Khamenai a message calling for a dialogue a few weeks before the elections? He did not want to jeopardize his stated objective of opening a dialogue with the ayatollahs by giving his public support to the demonstrators. Worse was to come.

On Wednesday the US announced it was sending back its ambassador to Syria - an ambassador who had been recalled four years ago in protest against the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and the fact that Damascus was openly supporting Iran and terror. And yet Syria had not moved an inch from its position and its Foreign Minister Walid Muallem warmly endorsed the Iranian regime and said those who rebelled against it would fail. This was not the message the people risking their lives in the streets of Teheran wanted to hear from the greatest Western democracy.

Europe protested more vigorously, but that was all. Great Britain risked a diplomatic confrontation with Iran; Nicolas Sarkozy condemned Teheran, but on Monday gave a warm reception to one of the staunchest supporters of Iran, the visiting emir of Qatar, who did not hesitate to defend that country's regime in a speech he gave to French political leaders while a guest of the mayor of Paris. The West just abandoned the protesters to their fate. Political and economic interests prevailed.

After all, it was supposed that the Iranian regime would triumph and the protesters would be defeated. It was therefore of paramount importance to keep communications open with the ayatollahs and not to hamper the increasing flow of goods and technology between Europe and the huge Iranian market; best to be prudent and let the Iranians sort their own problems.

And what of the people in the streets fighting well-trained and superiorly equipped forces? Wouldn't they have wanted - expected, perhaps - that the West would take a stronger stand?

It has been suggested that had the US openly supported the dissidents, it would have been taken by the ayatollahs as proof that the Great Satan was behind the protests. It seems more likely that the people would have welcomed a strong condemnation and a call for new elections, or at least for an international probe of the election results.

Well, that did not happen and one can only conclude that neither the US nor Europe is willing to tackle the situation head on. For all their talk about democracy and human rights, they are not ready to act. One can only remember the Hungarian revolution crushed by Soviet tanks in 1956 while the West looked on, and ponder what is going on today in North Korea.

This is a lesson for extremist and dictatorial regimes. The West is not ready to fight for what it believes. The watchdog of democracy is toothless.

Arab countries, which go in fear of the aggressive policy of Iran, are silent. A few commentators did express satisfaction with the turmoil in Iran and hope that it would cool the ayatollahs' ardor for exporting the Islamic revolution. However, the Arab leaders are mute. They do not wish the revolt born in the streets of Teheran to reach their shores and perhaps topple them.

The writer, a former ambassador to Egypt, is a fellow of The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184921941&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk